It appears that you're right, David. I do have a rather involved path. At
home, where I only have a simple path, the speedup is only 4,000 times instead
of 200,000 times. I don't mind that IDL follows its rules for locating the
routine anywhere along the path. However, once IDL determines that the
routine cannot be found, wouldn't it make more sense to compile a "dummy"
empty routine than to continue searching for each new object of the same type defined?
Since RSI didn't want to implement this that way, I still hold that the
solution is to ALWAYS define your INIT (constructor in C++ terminology --
sorry!) and CLEANUP (destructor) functions in IDL. This avoids the problem of
writing code for users with involved paths who don't know it.
Phillip